There Is A Strategy

July 22, 2024 | Civil Liberties, Constitution, General, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

I am going to start with a story that is worth telling. It is the story of a man, whom I met many years ago. A man of great courage, honor, and dignity. A man, the likes of whom, we need today, one of exemplary fortitude and the willingness to face his humanity, but more importantly, to face one of the most corrupt institutions that operate as a so-called legitimate agency.

Robert L. Schulz held a hunger strike at the Capitol demanding that the IRS cite the law that makes the average citizen, who simply earns a living, liable to pay an income tax. The IRS did not answer the question, although the hunger strike was ended at the behest of men like Ron Paul who negotiated with the IRS to answer the questions. As a note to this, Ron Paul had publicly stated that the income tax was being misapplied.

Importantly, the courts have ruled;

Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 733 (1925):

Lead Opinion

“From these cases it is seen that occupations which are of common right are not privileges, and cannot be taxed by the State, because this clause by limiting the State tax to privileges necessarily excludes taxes on all occupations which are not privileges.”

Concurrence

“[T]he Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right, but it does have the power to declare as privileges and tax as such for state revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right…”

Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-56 (Tenn. 1960):

“Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed.

“Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege.”

Of course, there are supreme court decisions that clarify the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment, which prevented the misapplication of taxes rather than what it has become through corruption. – See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court reiterated its clarification of the proper interpretation of the Amendment. The Amendment was instituted to prevent a direct tax on the wages and earnings of the citizen. The purpose was to prevent occupations of common right to be placed in the category of an excise. 26 U.S.C. confirms this by specifically listing sources and activities that are taxable.

Why is the misapplication of the income tax so important, particularly at this time when our national debt has exceeded THIRTY-FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS, and our National Debt increases by more than a staggering ONE TRILLION DOLLARS every three months.

Most people believe that the purpose of the income tax is to run government. When properly applied as an excise, impost, or tariff that would make it so. Many  suppose that taxation is in part to affect a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. There is nothing further from the truth. The intent of the current application of the income tax is to steal from the lower classes and enhance the wealth and power of the elites.

Think critically about our monetary system. The Treasury prints FIAT dollars, or the FED adds zeros, in huge quantities to the bottom line of large institutions to bolster the economy. Why does the Treasury issue bonds for borrowing money when they can just print what is needed,  tax accordingly, and save Trillions in interest payments? What reason other than to increase the wealth of the elite and place the tab on the back of the average citizen?

The debt will continue to increase, and taxes will continue to sap the wealth of the lower classes in order that “public officials” may  bring about their sinister agenda. We need only look to the WEF (World Economic Forum) whose stated goal is to take everything. The rich will become richer, and the poor will suffer under the boot of an authoritarian state.

There are mechanisms, means by which we can thwart what appears to be inevitable now. Bob Schulz went to the NRA and proposed a plan of making a two sided attack against the abuses of government.

The National Rifle Association is the largest organization of its kind in the world. Over Five Million Members who could turn the tide if they chose to do so. Envision a movement demanding that the IRS cite the law that makes you and I liable to pay an income tax on our gross income. A term that is, at best, ambiguous within the code, in addition, to which the code enumerates specific sources and activities that create a liability. The specificity detailed within the code must be followed to the letter.

However, the NRA refused to join forces. Why? Fighting winning battles does not work well with such organizations or alternative media personalities. I have been out on the street talking to people for  years. The percentage of people who believe that there is nothing they can do, and that their vote does not count is quite disconcerting. I have news for the likes of Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Dan Bongino, Tim Pool, Steven Crowder, Alex Jones, and a host of others. We already know that something is very wrong. What we need to know is how “We the People” fix it, using the Laws we created. Your disregard, or misunderstanding of our unique form of Law is, at best, sad.

I will repeat myself. The Constitution is a uniform document that enumerates powers, and  prohibitions. “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Those words are quoted from Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, to which “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”. Ask yourself, what “Privileges and Immunities”  have we retained?

Please don’t tell me that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights” do not include the authorities found in Law, and history, upon which the Framers relied. Do not pretend that the Framers were unclear in the ratification; “In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. *** Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood.”– Williams v United States 289 U.S. 553

Let us not pretend that the Framers were without the foresight to provide themselves and their posterity with the authority and power “to execute the Laws of the Union”. As it is today, then, the ink was not dry on the Constitution when those seeking power contorted and demeaned the carefully constructed wording and function.

The Constitution must be read by “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include.” – Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, 157 US 429, 558. I quote Pollack here because it is a tax case, on a direct tax, that overturned the 1893 act of congress, and subsequently led to the Sixteenth Amendment’s clarification of the original definition at Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which lists “Imposts and Excises *** to pay the debts of the United States”.  

Lift the Veil, cast aside that curtain that blinds us and prevents the reclamation of the Republic. We must learn some truths and throw off the yoke that holds us down. What form of enforcement would the Founders recognize, and then codify to hold all government accountable, at every level?

Captain John Parker mustered on the Lexington Greens with his 70 Militia who were organized, armed, and disciplined according to statute. They were not volunteers as so many believe, or choose to believe today as an excuse to avoid participation. Yes, there were volunteers who were passed the age of maturity. Men such as Samuel Whittemore, who at 79 engaged the British Regulars in hand to hand combat, killed at least three Regulars, and was shot and bayonetted numerous times. Samuel lived another Fifteen Years and remarked that he would do it again for his country. Very different from the men of today who insist that Militia was voluntary, and that the Second Amendment is about an “individual right” that imposes no duty, creates no office, nor has it any force of law, or that we must do this peacefully when we condone the use of violence, every day, from acts perpetrated by unconstitutional agencies. Peace is our goal, but we must remember that the “execut[ion] of the Laws of the Union” is too often a violent enterprise. Turning a blind eye to belligerent acts of government agents, ignoring the trauma of the January 6^th prisoners, does not make us peace loving people. What it does is place us in the same category as the January 6^th committee, FBI, ATF, DHS, and the host of other unconstitutional ‘law enforcement’ prohibited by Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) SCOTUS ruled;

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power –

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

In just a couple of pages, Justice McReynolds writing for the court, included the history, the authority, and the organization of the Institution that the Framers of the Constitution specifically defined as the only recognized authority in the land to enforce the Law. His writing, is in stark contrast to the Heller decision, which was explained in Sixty-Five pages of mumbo-jumbo that completely ignored their prior decision in Miranda; “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”  Yet, Scalia wrote in Heller, “How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 specifically states, “To provide for calling forth the Militia, to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 specifically states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”.

For the codification of those Clauses, congress wrote the Militia Act of 1792; “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company…”

For those ill equipped to understand the English language, or for those who refuse to comprehend “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include”, Militia was not a voluntary group of men, but rather an Institution with regulation, fitness, form, function, and importantly operated as an autonomous body, manned and regulated by the able-bodied men of this nation who “when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

It is important to note to those who are constitutionally ignorant that Clauses in the Constitution cannot be altered to change “the sense in which [the words were] generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended.” – Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 332

The Constitution came complete with the methodology for change. Article V specifically states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

“[T]he term Militia appears *** in *** the history and legislation of Colonies and States.” It is from there we take its meaning, and its lawful authority recognized in the Constitution. Not from the propagandist, the ignorant, or the ambivalent. The Constitution can only be changed through the Amendment process. Even there, change would fail, because each state would have to amend their constitution, and revoke all their militia statutes. The Militia is a state institution, comprised of the People who would, hopefully, hold sacred their liberty and freedom from an oppressive government.

It can, however, fall by the refusal of able-bodied men to perform the Duty the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.”

We no longer have the Militia the Framers of the Constitution designated as the lawful authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. It has been relegated to the dust bin of history through ignorance, laziness, and ambivalence from one side, and hatred of freedom from the other.

Imagine a nation where its Founders were foresighted enough to create government limited by not only words, but also by the fact that the People were the ultimate authority to preserve and protect their liberty, freedom, their “Privileges and Immunities”.

Imagine a nation wherein the alarm for assistance was not limited to a 911 call and the availability of some emergency services, but instead was resolved by neighbors, who are also fellow Militia, trained to perform as needed.

Imagine a nation wherein Constitutional Militia would march to the Internal Revenue and take into custody all the agents and prosecutors who have blatantly, and with unlawful action destroyed the lives of so many by assisting corrupt  ‘public officials’ in plundering the wealth of the People.

Imagine a nation wherein Constitutional Militia would march to the Department of Justice and arrest the Attorney General, the FBI Director, and every other usurper of the power and authority specifically stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

Imagine a nation, instituted in a manner that you and I are the watchdogs, holding in check, not just street crime, but also that, which takes place daily in every branch of government. As the Constitutionally recognized authority we can stop voter fraud; we can stop governors violating election law; stop the imposition of taxes that sap the wealth of the people; secure our own border rather than that of another nation; and properly enforce the tax code so that industry must return to the United States where it once flourished, and provided Americans with prosperity.

Imagine the tears of joy of the people and families of the Jan-Sixers who have endured as political prisoners, to be released and given just compensation for their suffering.

Neither congress, nor the president can create agencies that usurp the authority specifically stated in the Constitution. It is unlawful on its face. We must, to quote Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., A.B., A.M., Ph.D., J.D., “revitalize the Militia” if we are to stop the march toward tyranny. To take the challenge from Steven Crowder, “Change my mind.”